Minutes - 01/15/2001 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
January 15, 2001
L CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Barbara Payovich
David Pequet
Anthony Tappin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Allen
Samuel Girgis
Surendra Goel
ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Alfred Savino
Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
Village Attorney Richard Martens
Village Engineer Dale Durfey
A quorum was present.
IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Pequet, to waive the reading of the November 20,
2000, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
111. DuPAGE MAYORS AND MANAGERS CONFERENCE — 1220 OAK BROOK BROOK
— TEXT AMENDMENT and SPECIAL USE
Steven Rhodes, Dommermuth, Brestal, Cobine and West, 123 Water Street, Naperville, attorney
for the petitioner, reviewed the request and background of the property. The site is approximately
.918 acres and zoned R -3. DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference have occupied the property
since 1992, under a 15 -year lease with the Village of Oak Brook. They are now seeking to
purchase the property and to set more clearly the zoning for the property. They are seeking a
recommendation for approval of a text amendment which is a special use in R -3 District, to clarify
the special use to include "conference of municipal governments and related uses." The request is
made so that they will be able to continue carrying on the use that they have been doing in that
building. As part of their application, they are also requesting that the Village approve a special use
for the property in accordance with the revised text amendment. They currently have
approximately 2900 square feet under roof and they are proposing to expand the facility by 2700
square feet and approximately 13 parking spaces. This is an expansion of the facility due to the
nature of the business they carry on.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes
Q 1..1G
January 15, 2001
Tim Fluck, Policy Analyst with DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference said that the Conference
has been in existence since 1962 and have been located at its current address (1220 Oak Brook
Road) since 1992. They are an organization of 36 DuPage Municipalities, including the Village of
Oak Brook. They promote excellence in local government and carry on a wide range of the
activities. They have a very active legislative program, which make their members aware of
developments in Springfield and Washington D.C. They carry out intergovernmental relations and
efforts to improve communication between municipalities and DuPage County. They carry out
special programs in planning and regulatory issues to make the members aware of recent
development in those areas. They also have a number of direct services such as their auction of
surplus motor vehicles, which the Village has participated. They currently have a staff of eight full -
time employees and have been evaluating both their personnel and staffing needs. Their goal is to
increase their staff by about five.
Mr. Rhodes reviewed the site plan. They are looking to expand the facility and the parking lot.
They are proposing a slight modification to the site plan presented. To satisfy Village staff
concerns, they will omit two parking spaces on the northwestern edge of the property and include
additional landscaping. This change will allow them to meet all of the ordinances of the Village.
Member Tappin asked if it is spelled out the exclusive and restrictive use of the property, generally
it is known what it has been used for and raised concerns that the language in the text amendment
allows only what they can do there in the future. Director of Community Development Kallien said
that under the current zoning, they have every right to continue the use that is there today.
Through the text amendment, they are trying to clarify what their utilization of the property is now
and in the future. The property can now be used for any permitted use in the R -3 zoning category.
The Village Board had originally approved a special use for the Mayors and Managers facility. It
was clear in that special use as to what was going on at the facility. If anyone wants to do anything
that is to the contrary of the approved special use, they would have to come back to the Village to
amend the special use.
Mr. Rhodes said that part of the business that the Conference does occasionally are studies run
out of their facility such as transportation, development and things of the nature. Those types of
activities that are sponsored by the Conference will be part of what they do. They have been doing
them since 1992 and they want to be as clear as possible within the Zoning Ordinance to make
sure they cover those issues. Some of the phrasing in the Ordinance itself talks about civic centers
and municipal offices, so they are trying to be as specific as possible. Sometimes a traffic study
firm comes in, uses and pays for some of their space while they are there performing studies on
traffic issues and things like that at the behest of the Conference. He wanted to make sure that it
was understood that type of activity is still allowed. This is why the word "organizations" was
included in the proposed language. They would not be bringing in someone that has no connection
to the business that they do.
Attorney Martens suggested that the language "(such as organizations performing studies,
conducting surveys, or providing consultation to units of local government)" could be changed to
read "(such as organizations providing services to units of local government including, conducting
surveys or performing studies)" This will help to make it clear that it all has to be for the purpose of
providing information of units of local government.
Tim Fluck mentioned that the primary concern of the Conference is that the DuPage Mayors and
Managers Conference is one of seven municipal councils of government in the metropolitan area.
They are somewhat different from five of the others, in that they just exist as a Conference. There
is one other organizational form that the Conference uses and that is the CATS (Chicago Area
Transportation Study) Council of Mayors, and they provide services operating as CATS Council of
Mayors for DuPage County. At least five of the other municipal councils of government operate
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
2
many other entities under the umbrella of their municipal conference. They have never really
embarked on that, but in the last few years, they have recognized that there may be a need from
time to time to maybe do that. For example, they are currently doing a comprehensive transit plan
for DuPage County and one of the things that has come up is the whole promise of intelligent
transportation systems and the use of computers to aid people in making trips from place to place.
There is a facility called a traffic management center a "TMC" which really is just a bunch of
computers that link to a bunch of different traffic signals and detectors in the county that would
really gather information and send it out to local governments and let them know where there is
traffic congestion. It would be much better for that to be in an independent organization for getting
grants and things like that. The Conference is best suited to operate this kind of entity, so they
would like to be able to have a room perhaps in their building that would be filled with computers
that would be doing that and they would then operate the traffic management center under their
operation. In terms of additional staffing, it probably would not require any, but it would be
something the Conference would do.
Dale DurFey noted that comments contained in his memo dated January 11, 2001 related to minor
changes to the site plan. They are going to resubmit a revised site plan later. Mr. Rhodes said that
the issues would be resolved to staffs' satisfaction.
No one in the audience spoke in support of the proposal.
Dan Callaghan, Developer of the Forest Gate Subdivision that is directly north and west of the
subject property, said that Mayors and Managers are good neighbors. He believes they are an
excellent buffer between the development and the busy intersection of 31" and Jorie Blvd. The
request is also for approval of a site plan for the property allowing expansion of the existing building
and parking lot. He realizes they are doing so with the land that Forest Gate donated to the Village
and on a whole has no problem with that. That property was deeded allowing construction vehicles
to enter and exit the existing driveway off on 315` during the time of construction of all of the Forest
Gate units, which will probably last another 3 to 3 %2 years based upon the pace of sales.
During the plan submittal for Forest Gate, they did not realize the difficulty emergency vehicles
would have to use the Managers and Mayors driveway, and then to turn left and go west onto the
loop road of Forest Gate. He had made a commitment that if the driveway were damaged, they
would agree to resurface it. After work began in the development, he carried through with the offer
and completely resurfaced and rebuilt the driveway. He is concerned that the access driveway will
not be decreased from what currently exists. He does not want to have problems with drainage or
standing water. In addition, all of the municipal emergency vehicles can turn left and go west on
the loop road, with the exception of the ladder truck. However, that truck using a three -point turn
can accomplish the turn. He submitted a proposed revision marked "A" (page 14 of the petition
file). The darkened line denotes the existing driveway on Lot 82. A proposal marked "B" (Page 13
of the petition file) does show adequate landscaping between the parking lot and 31St Street. He
believes the same consideration needs to be given from the increased parking lot and the homes to
the west and north of the lot. The Mayors and Managers proposed redesign eliminates two parking
spaces and on Callaghan's proposal, it would eliminate three spaces. In addition, he would like to
see 11 additional 10 -12 foot spruce trees. He would like permission to install four of the pine trees
requested directly west of the driveway at his own expense. He does not want deciduous trees;
they would like screening year round, and pine trees will do that.
The next issue is the parking lot lighting. The original parking lot lighting is the medium sized street
lighting square can that shines down. He would request that type of lighting be removed. There is
mushroom lighting along the walkways and around the building, that has more of a residential
character. They would also like to have a restriction to prohibit parking lot lighting after 10:00 p.m.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
3
roLy
The character of the neighborhood would not be changed with the exception of the increase of the
parking area. Without the additional landscape buffer between the proposed expansion and homes
priced $800,000 and up, their plan as shown is inadequate. The present plan does diminish
property values, but if additional steps were taken to buffer the Forest Gate Subdivision with solid
landscaping, they would have no objection. He stated that he was not telling the Board what to do,
but he asked if they were the people buying those lots, what concerns would they have if the
parking lot were expanded into their backyard. He believes the requests are minimal and would
appreciate the Board considering them.
Suzanne Gordon, 317 Trinity Lane, a 15 -year resident of Oak Brook greatly admires the work of
the Plan Commission, Zoning Board and Board of Trustees which have made the town one of the
best places to live in the western suburbs. Their future home is Lot 20 that is under construction in
Forest Gate. The property is in excellent condition and the existing landscaping shelters it well.
She supports the purchaser's right to expand the building and parking lot, and trusts that the Plan
Commission will accept an aesthetic and well designed expansion. Her only concerns are the
lighting because the rear of the yard will face the lot. She would prefer 8 p.m., but would accept 10
p.m. as a proposed time to shut the lighting off. She also supports the increased landscaping
discussed.
Chairman Aktipis and the Commissioners discussed the issues raised.
Member Tappin said that he supports the lights out at 10 p.m. if not sooner, and the lower
mushroom type lighting fixtures that are adequate for safety. He supports the landscaping offered
by the Forest Gate developer and believes it would enhance the whole project.
Member Payovich questioned the time that current meetings end. Tim Fluck responded that they
sometimes have task force meetings that have to meet after hours. They customarily go until 9
p.m., but it would be unusual to go past 10 p.m.
Steven Rhodes said that they are willing to consider the landscaping that was offered, however the
parking lot has been designed to Village Code to ensure that it meets those Codes. They believe
that it is proper as designed. However, they are going to lose two of the parking spaces up toward
the ring road and there will be some modification to the landscaping in that area. They would be
interested if the developer would like to install four trees near the emergency access road as long
as it will fit within the confines of that space. In terms of lighting, they would also agree to the lights
out at 10:00 p.m., however, there will probably be some required security lighting at the building.
They are willing to work with staff to limit the time the lights are on.
Chairman Aktipis questioned the Village requirements. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the
Village Code is not specific, each site is looked at on an individual basis.
Steven Rhodes said that they would be willing to work with staff to choose an appropriate fixture for
the residential neighborhood. Cost is a concern, but they are willing to consider a lower light fixture
as long as it is within their budget. As far as the landscaping, their concern would be the site lines
onto the ring road. Twelve -foot evergreens may interfere with site lines coming out of the parking
lot. They are willing to look at the landscaping on the side of the emergency access road.
Chairman Aktipis said that his concern is that when a commercial area is mixed with a residential
area there is a real need to provide sufficient buffer, so that the people who spend quite a bit of
money to get a nice private home, protect it. He believes that sufficient landscaping should provide
an adequate buffer. Mr. Rhodes responded that they would modify their site plan as well as the
landscape plan pursuant to comments received by staff. They do understand the Plan
Commission's concerns of that matter. Their concern is that a twelve -foot evergreen tree is not an
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
4
eL-�f
inexpensive thing to purchase. They are willing to work with the neighborhood and staff to try to
develop an adequate treatment that will be beneficial to both sides.
Member Pequet commented that the section to the north is an important aspect of the border
situation. Although he understood the site line issue, the reality may come down to eliminating a
couple of parking spaces. He felt strongly that the bordering issues are far more compelling than
the parking spaces. The northern border is a more important issue for the Lot 20 and 21, than the
trees to the west.
Member Pequet said that he was concerned whether they had a real commitment from the
petitioner regarding the landscaping issues. He would hate to approve the plan with certain
conditions, and have them drop off down the way. He would rather see a revised plan come back
that is acceptable to both sides.
Member Tappin said that the Board of Trustees and Zoning Board of Appeals know what the Plan
Commission wants included. Trustee Savino noted that allowances could be included in the
recommendation for the special use.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet that the proposed Text Amendment is
deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety
and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is
located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval subject to the
proposed text amendment to read as follows:
"Public Utility. Transportation and Government Facilities: Public utility, transportation and
governmental service facilities, including municipal offices and civic centers, public libraries, police
and fire stations, public works facilities, a conference of municipal governments and ancillary uses
including organizations which provide consultation services solely to units of local government."
ROLL CALL VOTE
Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin that the Special Use as amended is deemed
necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and
welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located.
The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval subject to the following
conditions:
Increased landscaping must provided along the west and north perimeter of the property to
buffer the residential homes.
2. The parking lot light fixtures be changed to a lower landscape type lighting fixture.
3. Implement a timer system to turn off the parking lot lights at 10:00 p.m. each evening.
4. Provisions to be included that the landscaping is maintained.
5. Modify the site plan to incorporate the recommended conditions, including an allowance to
reduce the number of parking spaces to allow the increased landscaping.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
5
R �-`r
6. Subject to Village Engineer's letter dated January 11, 2001 and final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING
PROVIS IONS AND CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development, Robert
Kallien said that this discussion will pertain to a number of proposed changes to Chapter 3, as part
of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan Commission reached a
consensus on the items listed in his December 14, 2000 memorandum. However, there were eight
other items that the Plan Commission referred back to staff for further discussion and analysis as
well as some desire to seek the input of the Village Attorney.
13- 3- 1 -A -2. Add language to permit allowances, which may be requested in conjunction to a
special use. Eliminates the need to process special uses, which also involve variances as two
separate cases. Such an application of allowances was used with recent review of the special use
amendment for the Village Hall expansion project, which involved a 65 -foot wide driveway for the
new Fire Station.
They are proposing to formalize the concept of permitting allowances as part of special use
requests. Over the past few months, staff has presented cases more specifically the Village Hall
expansion, that contained an allowance for a fire department driveway as well as for the allowances
requested as part of the Residence Inn that was recently approved by the Village Board. These
were presented to the Plan Commission in an allowance format instead of a variation concept.
The Village Attorney said rather than making people go through the variance process, to handle
these as allowances as part of the special use. It is an easier standard to meet when made part of
a special use request. In many cases, they are not really items that test well against the standards
for a variance.
Attorney Martens stated that the concept is not really new. Reviewing the existing the Special Use
Ordinance, The Village may impose certain conditions and restrictions pursuant to the existing
ordinance. Section 13 -14 -9F (Special Uses) states as follows:
"Conditions: The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals may recommend, and the
Village Board may provide, such conditions and restrictions upon the construction, location
and operation of a special use, including, but not limited to, provisions for off - street parking
and loading as may be deemed necessary to promote the general objectives of this Title
and to minimize the injury to the value of the property in the neighborhood."
This is similar to what the Plan Commission did with respect to the Mayors and Managers request,
where some allowance were recommended in off - street parking. In another installment of the
Zoning Code, Section 14, Administration, they are going to dovetail the language before the Plan
Commission tonight with the language in the Administration section so that it will further clarify that
allowances can be part of a Special Use request. The language in large measure comes from the
State Zoning Enabling Act. That is the genesis of the notion.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
6
_'t
Chairman Aktipis questioned whether this recommended change is a trend in which other villages
have engaged in. Attorney Martens said that it is fairly common in communities around the state to
see these allowances as part of special uses. The Forest Gate project had a number of allowances
involved in that development. Oak Brook has done it on a number of occasions, and wanted to
bring it before the boards and call it by name.
Chairman Aktipis said that the change would somewhat simplify procedures. Village Attorney
Martens, said that any allowance that would be recommended would have to be reasonable, could
not be arbitrary and certainly be in the public interest. These are all judgments made by the
Commissions in making a recommendation.
Chairman Aktipis also said that in the past, some of these issues would go directly to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission would not hear them. Village Attorney Martens said
that Special Uses go through the double hearing process and Variations do not. Typically, the
large special uses there are a variety of issues that come into play and the Village needs to step
back since we are becoming more and more built out as a village, and see what benefits are
gained by the special use and balance that by any possible accommodation or allowance that
would be accorded to the developer.
Chairman Aktipis said that an absent Commission member was concerned that the approval
process would be less stringent if the Village would adopt this change. Village Attorney Martens
said that there is a greater measure of discretion, more balancing than would otherwise be the
case. As Oak Brook is fully built out, there become questions of redevelopment and most
communities in this situation find that for redevelopment frequently these things need to balanced if
you are going to attract new development to the community. Very often, there may need to be
some allowances made.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the request is to formalize the concept of
allowances by including the changes in Chapter 14.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Allen, Girgis, and Goel
13 -3 -5. This section, which establishes specific setbacks along certain streets, contradicts
some setbacks, which are listed in several of the zoning districts. Also, some of the assumptions,
which were used to establish these original setbacks, may not be valid today. As an example, the
current setback along York Road contemplates a five -lane cross section through Oak Brook.
However, today's traffic patterns and volumes do not support this original assumption. Therefore,
three alternatives are being offered for your review and recommendation. Alternative 1
recommends that portion of York Road, south of 31St Street be reduced from 100 feet from the
property line to 100 feet from the centerline. This portion of York Road is primarily residential with
many homes having direct access to the roadway. This area of York Road is now proposed to
have an ultimate cross - section of two thru -lanes with a center turn lane instead of four thru -lanes
that exist north of 31St Street. Alternative 2 recommends that the minimum setback along a street
be consistent to the setbacks contained in the underlying zoning district with the exception to
maintain the 22"d Street setback at 100 feet from the property line. Alternative 3 recommends that
the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks in the underlying zoning district
without exception.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
7
In regard to Alternative 1, Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the Zoning
Ordinance provides for a 100 -foot setback as measured from the property line although the
underlying zoning in many cases would require only forty feet. A number of structures have been
developed many years ago that really are in noncompliance with that setback. Page 15 and 15a of
the petition file are maps that show the impact of the 100 -foot setback as measured from the
property line versus the 100 -foot setback as measured from the center line of York Road. One of
the reasons this area of York Road was targeted is not only due to the number of structures that
are in noncompliance, there is also a roadway that does not have a need for the ultimate cross -
section that may exist north of 31S` Street. According to Village Engineer Durfey, York Road will
probably only have two through lanes with a turning lane based upon the current and anticipated
traffic patterns. Also, most of these properties have direct access to York. The proposal is that we
redefine how we measure the front yard setback in this area of York Road. Three alternatives were
offered, however Alternative 2 and 3 were for discussion purposes. Alternative 1 offers the
greatest opportunity and consideration.
Member Pequet said that looking at the maps provided, there are 18 nonconforming structures due
to property line setbacks and only 10 if the center line measurement is used. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that although those ten may still have a portion of their
property be nonconforming, it still offers them greater opportunities for redevelopment. Previously
most would have had to come in for a variation to build any building addition.
Emanuel and Irene Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, reside in the house on the corner of York Rd and
31s` Street. He said that their house is totaling nonconforming and they are planning on building a
new house on the property. Alternative 1 does provide some relief, but Alternative 2 and 3 they feel
would eliminate the hardships placed on this lot because of the current setbacks and exceptions to
the yards facing Oak Brook Road and York Road. They asked that the Plan Commission consider
approving Alternate 2 or 3.
Member Pequet questioned the difference between the Alternatives. Director of Community
Development Kallien explained that it would provide more relief, however, it would produce a
checkerboard effect down York Road because there are several different zoning districts with
different setback requirements. They would like uniformity. Alternative 1 gives them some
opportunities that currently are not available to them now.
Chairman Aktipis noted that those properties that do not conform to the requirements would have
the opportunity to come and ask for specific relief for the particular circumstance. Director of
Community Development Kallien said they would need to seek a variance.
Member Pequet responded that it is staff's recommendation for Alternative 1, which is visualized on
page 15 and 15a of the file. That relief will eliminate almost half of the problems. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that all of the properties that are currently nonconforming
would benefit by this change. Member Tappin added that they should have 100% assurance that
they can appeal and get reasonable hearing on these issues.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented in Alternative 1.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
8
�i.Y
13- 3 -6 -B. Recommend a proposal to permit solid six -foot (6) fences where a residential district
abuts a non - residential district or corporate limits of the Village. Our current standard now permits
42 -inch high fences that are 50 percent open.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that currently we allow 42 -inch high fences that
are 50% open in Oak Brook. ZORC (Zoning Ordinance Review Committee) has proposed that we
expand those provisions slightly to allow solid six -foot high fences along residential district that abut
up to nonresidential districts or back up to the Village corporate limits.
There was a question from the Commission that for properties backing up to major roadways,
should this be considered in those areas. The issue was brought back to ZORC and the intent was
not to create a "walled effect' along the major roadways. They are seeking to open the fence
provisions up slightly so that maximum screening can be provided between adjacent residential and
nonresidential uses, or at the perimeter of the Village. There are communities that are nearby that
do allow solid fences along their major roadways, but it creates a "wall effect." This is not
something that is really desired in Oak Brook. When Oak Brook was created, one of the basic
principals found in the beginning documents is that the openness be maintained throughout the
community.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
13- 3 -7 -B. Clarify the timeframe habitable vehicles can be parked or stored on a property to
three consecutive days.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the text of the Ordinance says that habitable
vehicles cannot be there for more than three days. ZORC has proposed to add "consecutive" days,
so that there is some timeframe to at least try to measure a duration for the vehicle. Three days
alone, is difficult to interpret and difficult to enforce.
It was also raised by the Chairman, as to whether we are in need of some regulation, and could this
be modified to regulate the number of vehicles that are actually parked on driveways. ZORC
reviewed this issue and there is a matter that each residential parcel has to provide a minimum
number of required parking stalls that are not in a required yard. Most people are able to
accomplish this by building a garage that is located outside the front yard setback. However, there
are people that have more than two vehicles and they do park them on their driveway. Some go to
further extremes than others. Some try to maximize the number of vehicles.
Chairman Aktipis asked whether the courts would not support the notion that that the Village has
any right to regulate the number of vehicles parked in front of a house. Village Attorney Martens
responded that part of the problem is that there are a great many residents park vehicles in front of
their house. If such a regulation would be created, there could be great ramifications across the
community.
Member Tappin added that they have had problems with derelict type cars that are left out.
Director of Community Development Kallien answered that there is a provision in the current Codes
that all vehicles have a current license. Over the past year and a half, Community Development
staff has worked with the Police Department to remedy some of those situations. Member Tappin
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
9
_O-7
said some of the homeowner associations have these regulations built into their regulations. There
should be some relief provided.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village does not have the staff to run a
"Gestapo." Many times when a call is received, the vehicle may have already been there for
several days. When we make a site visit, we then confirm that it is there, and then wait another 72
hours for a field study to verify that it is actually in violation.
Member Tappin suggested that perhaps it should be put in the regulations that a homeowner has to
call the Village for permission, then it is a positive thing rather than catching them doing it later. It
would also support what they are doing in the homeowners associations.
Chairman Aktipis added that he knows of instances where homeowner associations have had
concerns about this problem, and when they have called the Village, they were simply told that
there is nothing that can be done. It seems that if an issue becomes such that the association calls
the Village, there should be some way by which the Village could take action. If there are more
cars than people, that should not be a difficult issue for the Village to support in court.
Village Attorney Martens responded that there are a significant number of situations in Oak Brook
where people have more cars than they have occupants of the dwelling. These are policy
decisions that the Boards need to work through; it is always tough to legislate when some people
will push everything to the limits. When you do legislate, it will effect everyone in the town and is
apt to have greater ramifications sometimes than you might expect.
Member Payovich questioned how many complaints are received regarding cars, not recreational
vehicles. Director of Community Development Kallien responded approximately 1 or 2 per year.
Member Payovich questioned how many complaints are received regarding RV's. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that the Community Development staff may see one parked
and will stop by and indicated what the regulations are and usually the problem is taken care of.
He said since the Zoning Ordinance was being updated, this was an opportunity to maybe help
future enforcement to identify three consecutive days versus just three days.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that staff could continue to work on the issue of
cars, and if some potential language that could help is developed, it could be brought back later.
Chairman Aktipis questioned that someone could move the vehicle after three days and move it
back a couple of hours later.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that will always be a problem with this type of
enforcement, it puts the Village in a very difficult situation to document that a situation may be in
noncompliance, and if it moves to an enforcement before a judge, documentation has to be able to
support that there was a violation.
Village Attorney Martens responded that whenever there is a durational requirement, that possibility
will always exist, where someone will work around it.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Allen, Girgis, and Goel
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
10
-�?A�
13 -3 -9. Originally 13 -3 -11, recommend including a reference to microcells and a clarification
that distributing equipment does not include cellular telephone towers and ancillary equipment.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that an example of a microcell would be a
telephone pole on 22nd Street or Route 83, small antennas are microcells designed to enhance
wireless communications. The suggestion is to allow the reference to microcells be added, but
does not include cell towers, which are quite tall.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that they were trying to come up with a definition
of microcell and Village Attorney Martens said that it was found on the Internet:
" Microcell — A wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna that is either a: four
(4) feet in height and with an area of not more than five hundred eighty (580) square inches. Or b:
If a tubular antenna no more than four inches (4) in diameter and no more than six (6) feet in length
in the associated equipment cabinet that is six (6) feet or less in height and no more than forty -
eight (48) square feet in floor area."
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
13 -3 -14. Recommend a decrease in the minimum parcel size from two (2) acres to one (1)
acre for driveway gates. Several inquiries have been made from residents concerning a desire to
construct driveway gates on parcels that are at least one (1) acre in size.
Director of Community Development Kallien explained that this issue is regarding driveway gates
and said that it seems reasonable to include R -2 properties, which are minimum 1 -acre parcels. At
least one requests has been made over the past year for a driveway gate on a 1 -acre parcel. A
resident had proposed some language and Village Engineer Durfey suggested the wording on
page 13 of the petition file. There is a need to define what is a local street and what is not.
Village Engineer Durfey said that first of all there would probably need to have a list of all the
classifications that we want to use, then assign values to a street with those in mind. Chairman
Aktipis asked whether this was needed to be done at this point. Member Pequet asked if existing
gate systems would be grandfathered. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the
distance requirements are so that people can turn off the road, park a vehicle in that location, get
out and open the gate. It is not as critical in a local neighborhood where the traffic flow is at a
much slower rate. If there is something protruding on a roadway that carries a heavy volume of
traffic, there could be some problems.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text
on page 13 of the petition file subject to the Village Engineer developing a list of local and nonlocal
streets.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Allen, Girgis, and Goel
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
11
13 -3 -16. Recommend creating language to permit temporary buildings, structures and uses of
land for a time period of up to six (6) months with conditions. Currently, these types of activities
cannot be accommodated.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that ZORC has discussed this further and
believes that this issue can be handled without being included in the zoning ordinance.
13 -3 -17. Recommend creating language to permit telecommunications towers on any Village
owned property except property zoned CR Conservation /Recreation. Currently, new
telecommunications towers are not permitted.
The members agreed that this was a good idea on existing towers to generate additional revenue
for the Village, but were concerned over building any new towers and where they would be located.
As requested by the Plan Commission, a chart was presented by Director of Community
Development Kallien showing all village -owned property.
Member Pequet said that additional clarification needs to be made as far as to what type of
microcell should be placed on what type of building. A microcell on top of a one story well house
would be okay; however, to put a one hundred -foot tower on that building is unacceptable in a
residential area. It makes a lot of sense to have the option for the Village to put antennas on
certain structures if it is in keeping with the structure or the area. The community has areas where
reception is very difficult for cell phones, and there is a great need for locations, but it comes down
to what type of antenna in what location.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that most of the cellular service is provided by the
placement of equipment on top of a taller building, or on towers that are in adjacent communities.
In reviewing other communities' telecommunication ordinances, many times they will qualify a site
by requiring certain setbacks or limit the size of the tower based upon the parcels size or certain
use group.
Village Attorney Martens said to bear in mind that the Village Board would have the final authority
no matter what. Any tower provider would need to have some sort of agreement with the Village in
any event, so ultimately the Village would have total control over the matter.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that their intention was to provide a vehicle by
which someone could request the Village Board the ability to locate a telecommunications tower on
one of the sites. The actual approval or construction would be something that would have to
be worked out through an agreement with the Village Board.
Member Tappin said that they could recommend that caution should be given in residential areas.
Chairman Aktipis looked at potential sites, it was agreed by the Members that they should not be
located in areas that are zoned residential or CR. They agreed the following sites could be
acceptable sites for the Village to use:
1. Village Commons
2. Fire Station II — 22 "d and Enterprise
3. Well House #2 - Windsor Drive and 188 —
4. Water Storage Tank - Tower Drive
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
12
101--2
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented with the above stated conditions taken into consideration.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
A ten - minute intermission was called.
V. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES
TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION TO THE
BUILDING AND A NEW PARKING LOT
Joe Beczak, represented Christ Church of Oak Brook and reviewed the proposed request. They
are seeking the addition of two nurture and care rooms adjacent to the Sanctuary; the creation of
an audio /visual center above the bridge; an allowance from the 100 -foot setback to allow for the
expansion of the existing kitchen, including a new preschool atrium entrance. They are also
seeking an allowance to the 100 -foot setback to allow for a 30 -car parking area for preschool drop -
off and pick -up. This would also be used on Sunday's for visitors who are physically challenged
and need easier access into the church. They will ensure to provide adequate screening with
evergreens to protect the aesthetic presentation of the area. They have talked to the surrounding
neighbors soliciting comments and making sure that they new what the Church was trying to
accomplish and to make sure that it did not interfere with anything that they thought would be
displeasing.
Member Tappin questioned why a special use was needed to add care rooms to the church.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is an existing special use on the site
and the existing special use had a site plan and building elevations. In this case, they are adding
onto the building elevations. They are also seeking allowance for kitchen expansion and atrium and
the parking lot to encroach into the 100 -foot setback.
In the case of the kitchen expansion, the requested 30 -foot encroachment is within the proposed
change to the York Road setback as measured from the center line, and would no longer be an
encroachment into a required yard. However, a significant portion of the parking lot mostly the
portion that lies closest to York Road, would still encroach into that new setback. It appears to
encroach about 85 feet into the required 100 -foot setback.
Member Tappin asked how the parking lot would be used including lighting. Mr. Beczak responded
that they would recommend using lower lights so as not to disturb the neighbors. They would make
sure the lights are turned off by 10:00 p.m.
Chairman Aktipis questioned if someone were in need of additional relief that was not allowed they
would need to seek a variation, so in order to approve the request they would have to meet those
standards. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that under the allowance
concept, you have to consider the impact of the request against the requirements for a special use.
Village Attorney Martens said that under the Special Use standards, you would have to look at the
effect this proposal would have on adjacent properties. The standard as to whether or not this
proposal is in the best interest in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare is also
relevant.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
13
'-"7
Joe Beczak that they have addressed those standards in their submittal. The parking lot will allow
the seniors on Sundays to have special access to the building. It is difficult coming up to the
building due to the grade. They have to walk up hill to get to the sanctuary.
Village Attorney Martens said that the general standard in all zoning decisions is that it must be
reasonable and not arbitrary. The applicant has to present evidence to satisfy those standards and
the Commission has to be satisfied that it is a reasonable request and not making an arbitrary
decision.
Member Tappin questioned the bike path issue. Village Engineer Durfey responded that part of the
petitioner's revised application states that they will have 8'6" of area between the bike path and the
easement, which would be sufficient.
Chairman Aktipis had a question regarding the new parking along York Road. Can parking be
added in another area. Does it need to be added at this location?
Sam Darby, Architect from Larson and Darby, said that as stated in the submittal there are over
100 mothers and fathers that drop off their children daily to the nursery area. The site, which has
grown over the years, there is one access to the site from York Road and one access from 31St
Street. As the building has grown, at this location of the building for the nursery, is where the
mothers and fathers have to drop off their children. Presently there is a turning circle that is a
service area where vehicles service the kitchen and it is also possible for a mother or father to drive
into that circle and exchange their children. The closest place mothers and fathers can park to
drop off the children is far from the entrance. There is additional property where they could park,
which would be south of the access to York Road, but then it is hundreds of feet away from the
entrance. With the increase in the activity of the preschool and nursery, the attempt is to get a
drop -off point that is safe and secure where mothers and fathers can park and bring their children
at grade level into the building. Another advantage is that for special members and friends that
have some difficulty climbing the slopes, it would be assignable parking for them on Sunday.
Sam Darby passed out a cross - section of the parking area that showed approximate grading that
would be available. In the section with a six -foot high hedge, automobiles parked in that lot would
not be seen from York Road. The plan illustrates the parking, turning circle, planting strip, bike
path, existing parkway and York Road. 30 parking spaces have been deemed necessary by the
church to accommodate a need for 120 visits by parents twice a day to exchange their children.
There was an alternate scheme developed that had parking only within a changed setback of 50
feet and at most they can get is 20 cars, but they would have to extend the lot another 65 feet to
the north. That scheme physically disturbs the view of the sanctuary, which is a substantial
presentation of a religious structure from the corner of 31St and York. It would put parking farther
north on the property and therefore, there would be greenery and hedge material that would be
projecting out beyond what is presently there and it would be an impairment to the view and
architecture to the existing building. In this case, recognizing the same problem mentioned earlier
and both York and 31" street, they thought it would reasonable to request these parking spaces be
placed in a parklike environment on the east side of the property.
Member Pequet said that it has some merit to consider the 30 -space parking lot configuration so as
not to obstruct the presentation of the structure and the corner.
Member Payovich agreed with that point, but she was concerned with what kind of a precedent
would they be setting since the church owns the rest of the property going south along York Road.
Would they be dealing with this type of situation in the future and how would that affect the Village's
dealings with the commercial residents.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
14
_12�
Member Pequet questioned since it is a special use, would that make any difference? Village
Attorney Martens responded that there are other special uses that could perhaps come back.
Chairman Aktipis said he would not have a problem, if there were a real demonstrated need for the
parking, such as the couple that cannot build without relief being granted. However, if there are
alternative solutions to a situation that can be done with the existing parcel, then he is hesitant to
provide the relief to the extent that it has been requested.
Member Pequet said that the issue here is that the intent of this facility is to make the access safer
and more convenient than putting parking 300 -400 feet away. What they appear to be trying to do,
is to make the traffic flow and safer situation for the dropping off of the children. The point of the
petition is not the need for more parking, but for the convenience with the children. Sam Darby
responded that there is ample parking, the safety and the convenience of the parents bringing the
children into the facility is the issue.
Chairman Aktipis suggested perhaps there could be driving lanes so that there would be temporary
parking where a child can be dropped off. Sam Darby responded that it is difficult because they
are limited to one access on each street. It is a narrow strip of land and a dead end corridor where
you cannot successfully bring traffic in and turn it around and get it out as can be seen by the
service circle that is presently there. Chairman Aktipis asked if there is another access into the
nursery. Sam Darby responded that there are interior corridors throughout the building, but nursery
control and layout in the existing building all begins at this point. This would require traversing
through a labyrinth of corridors to get their children to nursery school.
Member Pequet said there is a preschool near his office that is almost a production line, with a
short window of time when there is an awful lot of traffic coming through. Joe Beczak said that the
people trying to come in off 31st Street would end up coming across the lane of traffic where they
are currently parking now. They are trying to avoid this flow of traffic as parents are trying to come
up to the building itself. By putting the parking lot off to the side, they are able to control the flow of
traffic and allow them access to sidewalk, which would allow them easy access into the building.
Sam Darby said that the attempt of the church is to get the mothers closer to the building. They
looked at another alternative if parking were only allowed on one side, they would get 20 spaces,
that is where the view starts to interfere with the sanctuary with the hedge material and parking lot
screening. It is an alternative but it is second best by far.
Chairman Aktipis questioned if there was a drive there with temporary parking rather than a parking
lot with an access onto York Road. Village Engineer Durfey said that it would require a DuPage
County permit and it might be deemed to be too close to the intersection and they might deny it.
Member Payovich suggested a right in entrance from York Road with an exit through the current
entrance. Trustee Savino said that one thing that makes Oak Brook look like Oak Brook is the
large setbacks. The corner at Christ Church looks very nice right now and that would be lost. They
are seeking a tremendous variation.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that it almost seems that with the distance
between the main entrance to the Church facility on York back into that far end of the new parking
lot, it almost appears that we are creating a parking cul de sac. You have to travel quite a distance
to do what you need to do and then come back out. There will be competing interests of people
trying to get in and out of spots, along with parents and kids walking across the drive aisles. There
will be a lot of activity in a really constrained area. The ability to move the traffic in and out of there
safely would be the question. Sam Darby said that he cannot disagree, safety is a factor and if
there could be allowed to have an entrance only off York Road that might solve the problem.
Chairman Aktipis suggested they might want to investigate that possibility.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
15
Sam Darby said that they would like to separate the issues so that the parking issue can be dealt
with separately.
Irene Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, testified that they live directly across from Christ Church and
would be affected visually and see no problem with the plan. She said that both their children went
to Christ Church preschool, and personally, it was very difficult to bring in the children. There were
fifty cars trying to go through this circle drive.
Emanuel Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, testified that he believes the preschool has a positive effect
on the children, which will hopefully be good future citizens of the Oak Brook area. They do not
have a personal affiliation with the Church.
Trustee Savino suggested that the Park District has a system with their preschool program, the
parents drive adjacent to the facility, and they come out and assist the parents and children. So
they stand and never park.
Jill Fleischman, 3109 York Road, testified that she lives directly across the street of the proposal.
She said that she is in favor of all of the requests and she will be in favor of the parking request
when it comes forward.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Tappin with the agreement of the applicant, Christ
Church of Oak Brook to table the portion of the hearing relating to the allowance to the 100 foot
setback on York Road for a new parking lot.
Voice Vote: All in favor. Motion passed.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Tappin that the Special Use as amended as
follows is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public
health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in
which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval for
the following:
a. The addition of two nurture and care rooms adjacent to the Sanctuary;
b. The creation of an Audio/Visual Center above the Bridge;
C. An allowance from the 100 -foot setback to allow for the expansion of the existing
kitchen, including a new preschool atrium entrance;
d. To be built in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted;
e. Final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
Vl. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE FOR THE 2001
ROADWAY PAVING PROJECT in TIMBER TRAILS SUBDIVISION
Village Engineer Durfey reviewed the proposed project. He reviewed a typical section in the
Timber Trails Subdivision as shown on page D of the petition file. He explained that they are
adding two -foot wide concrete shoulders on each side like they did previously in Ginger Creek,
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
16
Yorkshire Woods and Woodside Estates. There is some minor filling in the flood plain. They are
compensating the proposed grades and regrading of swales as well as an outlet pipe in a lot just
south of Merry Lane to discharge the water to Salt Creek.
The consultant engineers have designed it match the 1:5 to 1 compensatory storage requirement.
He reviewed the flood plain map and noted that Forest Trail is the main north /south street. The
areas in the flood plain are the areas in question. The existing road varies anywhere from 18 to 21
feet; the proposal is to make their roadways a uniform 19 feet wide as to edge of asphalt, plus the
two feet concrete shoulders. The roadside swales will probably be in a minimum range depth of 6
inches and perhaps as deep as 2 to 2.5 feet. There will be some tree loss for constructing new
roadside swales along the roadside rights of way. During construction, they will try to mitigate and
fine tune as much as possible to limit tree loss and damage to existing landscaping.
Village Engineer Durfey advised that the stream dredging the State did after the 1987 flood and the
Quarry should lower the water levels 1 to 1.5 feet, but those calculations from those agencies have
not been done yet.
The 11 factors as required by Ordinance are on page 7 of the petition files.
Chairman Aktipis asked which streets will be narrowed and which will be widened. Village Engineer
Durfey responded some of both, because the streets meander throughout and are not uniform.
Member Pequet questioned whether there was a procedure or process when trees are removed,
that the Village replace it with another tree. Village Engineer Durfey responded not specifically.
The Public Works Department has a tree program and they will begin to start planting selectively in
those areas. There has not been anything in Yorkshire Woods yet, but he expects that they will
begin to do that. They will probably do the same thing in this subdivision.
Member Payovich added that the Yorkshire Woods project turned out very nice and they mitigated
the removal of the trees, removing as few as possible. Chairman Aktipis said that they then have a
program for replanting. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it is a long -term program. The
Public Works Department handles it and it is a matter of dollars, which are very tight.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet that the Flood Plain Special Use as
requested is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public
health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in
which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
Vll. ADJOURNMENT
Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes
17
<�Z_L_ KX5��) -
Director of Community Development
Secretary
February 19 2001
Date Approved
January 15, 2001